{"id":45609,"date":"2018-05-22T19:42:29","date_gmt":"2018-05-22T19:42:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/one.sightlinemg.com\/militarytimes\/uncategorized\/2018\/05\/22\/democrats-fight-pentagon-push-for-battlefield-nukes\/"},"modified":"2026-08-07T21:56:15","modified_gmt":"2026-08-07T21:56:15","slug":"democrats-fight-pentagon-push-for-battlefield-nukes","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/one.sightlinemg.com\/militarytimes\/news\/2018\/05\/22\/democrats-fight-pentagon-push-for-battlefield-nukes\/","title":{"rendered":"Democrats fight Pentagon\u2019s push for battlefield nukes"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

WASHINGTON \u2014 House Democrats are fighting on multiple fronts<\/a> to block the Trump administration from developing a new tactical nuclear weapon<\/a>, and the debate threatens to turn into a partisan fight on the House floor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

House Armed Services Committee Democrats broadly backed a failed amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act earlier this month that would have stripped the bill\u2019s proposed sea-launched, low-yield nuclear warhead<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Democrats have not given up and since proposed multiple NDAA amendments that are hostile to the weapons<\/a>. The bill is set to be considered on the House floor this week, and on Tuesday, the panel\u2019s top Democrat, Rep. Adam Smith, of Washington, said the fight isn\u2019t over.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cI wouldn\u2019t even describe it as unease. We are inalterably opposed to it,\u201d Smith told reporters, adding that low-yield nukes are \u201ca mistake.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIt makes people start calculating: \u2019Well, it\u2019s a small nuclear weapon, maybe we\u2019ll have a small nuclear exchange and that will be OK,\u201d Smith said. \u201cOur deterrence policy has to be: no nukes under any circumstances.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Smith\u2019s stance tracks with his previous positions on nuclear weapons. He\u2019s balked at the long-term costs<\/a> of nuclear weapons modernization, proposed the country adopt a policy of not using nuclear weapons first<\/a> and attempted to cut funding for the air-launched cruise missile replacement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Smith\u2019s call to arms \u2015 or dis-arms \u2015 Tuesday came hours before the top Democrat on the Senate Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, Sen. Diane Feinstein, voiced her opposition to the $65 million allocated in her subcommittee\u2019s appropriations bill.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cI cannot support a new nuclear weapon,\u201d Feinstein, of California, said during the subpanel\u2019s markup of the bill. \u201cQuite frankly, I don\u2019t believe there\u2019s anything such as a limited nuclear war. I don\u2019t see any reason to develop new low-yield weapons. Once a nuclear weapon is used, by any country against any target, I believe it\u2019s Armageddon, and it\u2019s the end of us.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The weapon exceeds past nuclear modernization efforts, she said before signaling support for the appropriations bill overall.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A day earlier, the House Rules Committee cleared an NDAA amendment that would fence half the 2019 funding for the weapon \u2014 a modified W76, dubbed the W76-2 \u2014 until the defense secretary submits an assessment of its impact on strategic stability and options to reduce the risk of miscalculation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That amendment, by Reps. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., and Jim Garamendi, D-Calif., was among 103 that House Rules cleared Monday for floor consideration. Among the 560 others pending Tuesday, one from Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., would kill the W76-2 by shifting its $65 million budget line to deficit reduction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These amendments have a long, dim path procedurally and politically. All but a few Republicans, who hold the majority in both chambers, are unlikely to vote for measures that tie the president\u2019s hands or contradict his defense strategy.<\/p>\n\n\n\t